korbin13

I have seen this done in the US on quite a few different doggy websites and the results are really quite bizarre sometimes. We had our heinz variety mutt done, and really as she looks like a 'dog' we have no idea if it is true or not. It came back as one of her grandparents would have been a full neo mastiff and her great grandparents would have had a Stafford and a Maltese in there as well She really is so diluted in her breeds that she is in reality, a dog!

My dog did this when she had a sore paw. She would gently lick it and then her teeth would chatter? I thought it must have been because she was in pain but she still does it occasionally at random times, so I have no idea really. I will be interested to see what responses you get.

Original source http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/glenn-wheatleys-finger-savaged-in-dog-attack/story-e6frf96f-1226397646063

If you have a sign saying beware of the dog, enter at own risk & someone enters your yard & gets bitten, then you will be sued. I was told that by my local Ranger, he said you are admitting liabilty, by knowingly having a vicious dog on the premises. The local ranger is not a lawyer. Police aren't lawyers. If it came down to being sued, you would argue in front of a judge. Lots of things get argued in a court of law, it is up to the determination of the judge of what is reasonable and what is not, not the local ranger. Edit: Can anyone find any evidence of someone being sued for a dog bite and it being successful because they had a sign on their gate in Australia?

I have heard that it is a fallacy. You can argue that you have gone down to Bunnings and bought the sign to make people aware that you have a dog on the premises, not that the dog is dangerous. There are separate signs for dangerous dogs. These signs are mass made, we (as a community) have been putting them on our gates for quite some years now.

no, i don't think so either...i just meant in the way a regular pet dog would be locked away if strangers or tradies come to the house. very sad all round. Sorry, I think that we are at cross purposes! I am just thinking that there aren't any laws on the way that they are contained in WA and maybe there should be? Especially when the number of dogs are so high, very easy to get into pack mentality.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/girl-4-stable-after-three-dog-mauling/story-e6frg143-1226381921285 The dogs are pig hunters. I don't think that there is any law in WA that states that hunting dogs are to be treated as dangerous or restricted but I could be wrong. Interesting to read some of the comments, one says that the little girl went into the pen that the dogs were kept in? And they had an e fence? Poor little girl, her scars are going to be more than skin deep

My son had some friends over and were playing playstation in the games room, they had gone to Maccas and then went to choose a different game. Silly buggers left the door open. Two minutes later, two big macs gone!! How she managed to open the containers I'll never know. We know who it was, she had lettuce on her muzzle......

The idea of BSL is to eliminate the types of dogs who killed poor little Ayen so when the owners do drop the ball they don't own the type of dog that will go on a killing spree with uncontrollable aggression. There is a good reason why the types of dogs, Pitbull's, Mastiff's etc and cross breeds of these types of dogs are not used by professionals in protection and guarding, there is a reason professionals use GSD's Rottweiler's, Belgian Shepherd's because they have the stability, intelligence and trainability to be a safer option in the community........I am not against people owning dogs for a protective purpose, but they need to get a proper one bred with the stability for that type of role, not the progeny of uncontrollable landsharks from a BYB offered for sale in the Trading Post, crap dogs like this are accidents waiting to happen and ultimately the death of other animals and sadly people/kids. The last person killed in WA by dog attack was an elderly woman mauled to death by a couple of neighbours Rottweilers that were roaming.

Haven't they had some success in Calgary? With a combination of education and increasing fines? As has been said, you are never going to eliminate dog bites. Especially as the majority of bites/attacks come from the family dog or a friends dog, and the majority of victims are children. Would be good though, if when an incident occurs that the authorities investigate the circumstances thoroughly. Could bring up patterns we aren't seeing.

Wow, you must be so proud It really is a great hobby/interest for a young person to have, wish there were more out there.

I think that like a lot of things it is all about context. I can stare at my dogs and they can stare at me, they are used to it, they don't see it as a challenge, they have been rewarded for it in the past. It's a good thing. But when greeting a strange dog, I may make eye contact but I wouldn't stare at it. Definitely wouldn't stare at an unknown aggressive dog and would avoid all eye contact actually.

I know how they feel. We have a property fence that goes the whole way around the house. I have often answered the door to someone we don't know with my SBT sitting next to them wagging her tail! Not even an alert bark :laugh: My other bitsa dog is big enough to make people think twice about entering but she is mainly found sleeping in the lounge!

Will this lead to an increase in dog obesity?

No, I don't have time to do the research, but plenty of recent stuff has been done. The common factor that all FIFO workers have is that they fly away from their home and their pets for weeks at a time. The OP has indicated that the puppy would be living in boarding kennels for weeks at a time. I have placed many dogs in homes, and would not place a dog in a home where the owner has decided to work away from home for weeks at a time. This is a no-brainer for people that place dogs responsibly. This isn't a thread judging FIFO workers, it is a thread about whether a home is suitable and withholding information from a breeder when buying a pup. Well, you pretty much did that in your post saying that FIFOs demonstrate an ethic where cash is valued much more highly than community or home life. Maybe you should stick to the topic? If I was a breeder I don't think that I would sell to someone on that roster, two dogs boarding could get quite expensive.

The rangers where we are a quite good at picking up dogs during working hours but after hours, nothing But I don't blame them, it is council policy. I have spoken to one of the councillors about it and unfortunately it isn't seen as a priority. As for overhauling the Act, it would be of no use if they don't enforce it and considering they obviously don't now, what's going to change? The change needs to come from councils to get rangers to enforce what we have.

When we had our rental property we allowed pets. Never had a problem with anyone in the five years of owning it. The only renters we had a problem with was a couple who broke the lease and skipped overseas but wasn't overly worried about that. You can get landlords insurance that allows for malicious damage these days. We never viewed our rental property as our own personal home, it was an investment. And the only way to make the investment pay was to have people renting it and I believe that it was never empty as we allowed pets.

I don't think that a mastiff or an american bulldog is a restricted breed, so I am not sure how it could be deemed to be a restricted breed? What is disgraceful is that the dog that attacked your dog wasn't declared dangerous! It doesn't matter if it is a first offence. I don't believe that the act needs to be changed, just enforced. A friend had her dog attacked, the owner of the attacking dog paid the vet bills and the attacking dog was declared dangerous. And it was all done by the ranger and the dog hadn't attacked before. What I would like to see though is rangers being paid to collect wandering dogs after hours and owners being fined for repeatedly letting their dogs roam

It often amazes me when people state 'non shedding' as a criteria for a dog. Some because of allergies but most don't like the 'mess' and effort of dog hair. My mum had two maltese and they were the messiest dogs out (but they were the best fun!). Do these people understand the work involved in having a non shedding dog? And at the end of the day they are dogs and with dogs comes mess, well in my experience anyway!

It may be a given but it doesn't happen. Dog registration has been law for a long time, plenty of unregistered dogs out there. No one legislated puppy schools and dog obedience but they are becoming more and more popular, this has been through education.

While reading this thread I was wondering why you wouldn't have to clip an oodle? Obviously you do. Wouldn't it be as much grooming as a unclipped poodle? Love the unclipped poodle look though, pity I'm too lazy for fluffies, I'll stick to short coats. :laugh:

I totally agree except many people seem not to like the idea of pressure being applied to the "badly bred dogs component", unfortunately when the ignorant/irresponsible owner surfaces it's too late, their dog has already done the damage IMHO, it's time control was placed upon dog breeding in general to eliminate the present structure which is ultimately a free for all, do as you please situation. It's the breeders of crap dogs faced the music, if you breed rubbish from randomly putting a male and female together that ends up a landshark which comes from a BYB NFI basis, their breeding of dogs needs to be formally stopped. Dog breeding on a do what ever you like basis is rediculous that it's been allowed to go on for so long It's a nice thought but it is pie in the sky stuff. How do you enforce dog breeding practices? They can't enforce the current laws they have now. I would prefer to see more education and involvement of the community.

I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed.

If you worked off of statistics and worked out how many bull breeds and their crosses there are in the community they are going to represent a lot of the issues that are out there. Doesn't mean there aren't other breeds responsible but the 'staffy' type breeds would have to outnumber the labrador as Australia's most popular breed. You could then turn that around and talk about how many there are and the majority are good, law abiding dogs, even though their owners aren't!

Lol, and some people wonder why we love dogs!!